Re: On partitioning

From: Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: On partitioning
Date: 2014-11-12 23:31:48
Message-ID: 5463EDE4.20902@BlueTreble.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 11/12/14, 5:27 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> Maybe as anyarray, but I think pg_node_tree
>>> >>might even be better. That can also represent data of some arbitrary
>>> >>type, but it doesn't enforce that everything is uniform.
>> >
>> >Of course, the more general you make it, the more likely that it'll be
>> >impossible to optimize well.
> The point for me is just that range and list partitioning probably
> need different structure, and hash partitioning, if we want to support
> that, needs something else again. Range partitioning needs an array
> of partition boundaries and an array of child OIDs. List partitioning
> needs an array of specific values and a child table OID for each.
> Hash partitioning needs something probably quite different. We might
> be able to do it as a pair of arrays - one of type anyarray and one of
> type OID - and meet all needs that way.

Another issue is I don't know that we could support multi-key partitions with something like an anyarray. Perhaps that's OK as a first pass, but I expect it'll be one of the next things folks ask for.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim Nasby 2014-11-13 00:16:41 Re: pg_multixact not getting truncated
Previous Message Robert Haas 2014-11-12 23:30:39 Re: Unintended restart after recovery error